>Now, “falsification” itself is a silly/naive cartoon-ish framework for how to do science. It has its uses, but we mustn’t cling to it too much (which would be cargo culting). We certainly have many other useful approaches as well.
i don't understand your point. you're saying something like "even though GR supersedes Newton it doesn't falsify Newton, and Newton is still useful". yes incorrect theories can still be useful but that doesn't make them correct. As soon as i use Newton for very fast things (or very small things) and i get poor results that is falsification of the claim that Newton is a GUT. maybe that isn't an interesting claim (though certainly there are a lot of theorists that are interested in that claim) but that's subjective not formal.
That's because broken theories can be used as frameworks to predict outcomes in coarser grained slicing of systems. Falsification is used when it comes to modelling but as a scientific test or rigor it's still important to pursue it because it finds the limit of your theories.
Newton's theory isn't incorrect, it's only applicable within certain limits. It's no more incorrect than statistical mechanics is because it doesn't work with single particles.
i don't understand your point. you're saying something like "even though GR supersedes Newton it doesn't falsify Newton, and Newton is still useful". yes incorrect theories can still be useful but that doesn't make them correct. As soon as i use Newton for very fast things (or very small things) and i get poor results that is falsification of the claim that Newton is a GUT. maybe that isn't an interesting claim (though certainly there are a lot of theorists that are interested in that claim) but that's subjective not formal.